run_hunt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. It doesn't say whether running a hunt mutates state, triggers notifications, is long-running, or what happens if the named hunt doesn't exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than optimally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return values, so that need not be described. However, with zero annotations, an undocumented parameter, and no usage context, the description leaves an agent without enough information to invoke this confidently relative to its siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'name' is unexplained. The description implies 'name' identifies the saved hunt, but adds no format, matching rules, or case-sensitivity details to compensate for the undocumented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource pair ("Run a previously saved hunt") that is distinguishable from siblings like save_hunt and list_hunts. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the bare 'hunt' tool or explain what a hunt is, but the purpose is immediately clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the hunt must already exist), and no pointers to alternatives such as list_hunts to discover a name or save_hunt to create one first. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.